more debate, less insults
ALL issues relating to the bond issue and club finances
- Thread starter sammsky1
- Start date
- Status
I thought I was flirting.
http://andersred.googlegroups.com/w...oZhmrMR3uGvvPr01Poh-10xeV4duv6pDMGhhhZdjQlNAw
Scroll down to page 6 to see a more detailed analysis of the Man United family tree..
At the very top of the pile sit "(1) Family trusts affiliated with the Glazer family"
Everything underneath is a subsidiary of ultimately, Malcolm Glazer.
FIrst Allied, the bucs, the glazer foundation..
They are all branches of the company that is Malcolm Glazer.
He owns the lot.
Malcolm Glazer is a company..
He owns Red Football joint venture, which in turn owns 4-5 subsidiary companies.
LIkewise he owns First Allied, and you can rest assured that First Allied will have subsidiary companies.
The buccaneers is owned by Malcolm Glazer, the buccs will no doubt have subsidiary companies.
But the fact is they are all owned by one man, and ultimately he gets the final say in each and every one.
I'm sorry fred, you've lost the plot. United, the buccs and fa are in no way legally part of the same "group". And within the group does not mean between any company owned by Malcolm glazer, who as an individual is not a company. Your ignorance is frightening.
Is he? What's the company called?
He has the final say (within the parameters of the law and stipulations of financial terms) in companies he is the primary shareholder in sure, but the question is whether Carrington can be transferred outside of the Red Football group? You are claiming it can be as all the Glazers' separate companies are in effect part of the same group... I'm not sure this is legally correct though Fred? What are you basing the claim about Carrington on?
He's making it up mike.
Go on then clever boy..
Tell us what the corporate structure of the Glazer family actually is.
He posts under I-8-kopites on ri and has described himself as "educating" us on the cafe. Except he has no expertise in his subject matter whatsoever bar what he plagiarises from others.
That's relevant.
Andersreds family tree is obviously correct. However, your interpretation of it and how it applies to the bond covenants is all askew.
I'd say it's massively relevant that we have someone with no expertise in the matter at hand lecturing others on the finer details of that matter and claiming to be educating us.
With respect to Carrington the bond document says:
The phrase 'holding company or affiliate of the Parent' seems to me to mean it has to be part of the Red Football group, though I'm no expert.
Pages 64-65 said:
The phrase 'holding company or affiliate of the Parent' seems to me to mean it has to be part of the Red Football group, though I'm no expert.
Can we not just get andersred on here for a bit of sensible balance?
Fred were you I-8Kopites or something like that, in your Caf early days?
You've lost me - how does him posting as I-8-kopites on RI show that he has no expertise?
He has no expertise because he's told us on here. On that basis he perhaps shouldn't be trying to educate us on here, as he proclaimed on there.
Its common knowledge that many moons ago a group of us over on RI made up accouints and shared them. I-8-kopites was one such account.
That account was then banned alongside others.
I then made my own account Fredthered, and posted on my own.
Thats been common knowledge for god knows how long, and the mods knew about it too.
The way I see that corporate structure, the ULTIMATE SHAREHOLDER is the parent company.
Given that the parent company ( Malcolm Glazer ) has other subsidiaries, then moving carrington from Red Football to say First Allied, would be moving it to an affiliate of the parent.
Malcolm Glazer is the parent, not RFJV.
I don't care that you post on there. It's what you post. It pisses me off when someone with no knowledge whatsoever preaches to others who may know no better on a subject as emotive as united at this divisive time. That's it.
Anyway, I've said my piece and I'll not trouble this thread again. It's lost it's way in a big way or rather has been ruined by a know nothing pillock with a vastly inflated opinion of his own importance in the world.
Anyway, I've said my piece and I'll not trouble this thread again. It's lost it's way in a big way or rather has been ruined by a know nothing pillock with a vastly inflated opinion of his own importance in the world.
I couldnt care less what you like or you dont like.
being fair to Roodboy, GCHQ, and all the others, at least they are offering opinons. You dont have opinions. You just sit there bitching like a girl about things you dont agree with, without offering one iota of an opinion yourself.
If you havent got anything to offer this thread ( whether I agree with you or not ) then please do feck off.
I may not like what Roodboy and GCHQ post, I may not even like why they post, but I respect them for at least having the balls to come out and say what they think. Likewise, I'll say what I think..
Either come up with something constructive, or just feck off....
You want a debate, well fecking debate, dont sit there rubbishing bits you dont like without offering anything to the table yourself.
Hmm, that seems to be stretching it a bit to me. That section of the bond prospectus appears to be referring to the club, which would imply the parent is Red Football. Who knows though, fecking finance and corporate structure does my head.
I completely agree its very ambiguous because the bond prospectus isnt even offering an investment in MUFC FOOTBALL CLUB LIMITED, its offering an investment in MUFC Finance, whish is a completely different company to the football club, but they are themselves subsidiaries of Manchester United Limited.
What this does do, is it shows just how the finances can be manipulated, twisted and turned to suit...
What appears there on face value could have a very very different meaning depending on how you want to look at it.
I've offered my opinion. What I haven't done is provide financial analysis given that I don't have the knowledge to do so. Gchq and roodboy are financial professionals. You are nothing of the sort. Goodbye. Pontificate to your hearts content.
One week off and nothing has change...
I think that the plan is for this to be just for the moment until Niall releases his statement. We will then probably either reopen that thread or just allow discussion in the thread created with the statement.
Fair enough. Any idea how that statement is coming along?
If it comes out that Ciderman was lying when he said that MUST tried to sue him for calling Duncan Drasdo "duncan Dildo" does that mean Niall and MUST will be suing Ciderman ?
Depends how much Cider is worth 
No. Just waiting for Niall now. Obviously he is nervous about stirring things up again so he is taking his time.
Depends how much Cider is worth
Financially or to the forum..
If its the former you may get enough for a pint each down the dog and duck..
If its the latter, I'd say you were pretty much fecked.
I think it's a normal chair now and he just sits in it and rocks, chewing on one of his favourite flavour of crayons.
Bought this here because it is an important point so I didnt want it to get lost in the cluster feck that is the other Glazer thread. I would remind people to stay on topic and stick to serious financial discussion in this thread ...
I would like to start a discussion about why I believe the entire argument about our low net spend and lack of investment in the squad is a complete fallacy.
Good point peters - just to explain to those who dont know, amortisation of acquisitions is how the club officially accounts for all transfers - the bond prospectus shows the following expenditure:
2007 £24m
2008 £35m
2009 £36m
Now before anyone starts, I am not saying these numbers are perfect as there probably does need to be some clarification of what exactly these numbers represent. I have in the past commented that they are not really an ideal way to judge how much cash is spent in any particular year - however, over a period of time I believe they are a very good indicator of how much the club invests in the playing squad.
These numbers show that a lot more money has been spent on the squad over the last few years than many people realise - headline transfer figures (which people use to calculate net spend) bear little relation to how much is actually paid out on an annual basis and are really pretty irrelevant.
This is all to do with the fact that contracts nowadays are paid in installments with extra clauses that often trigger payments several years after a transfer initially takes place. This is never taken into account in net spend calculations which would have us believe that the entire transfer fee is always paid upfront (this is very rare nowadays).
Free transfers are also ignored in net spend calculations - for example, we acquired Michael Owen last year but that had no impact on our net spend eventhough he obviously is a player with a significant value. And on the other side of the coin, Chelsea lost Joe Cole for nothing, he must be worth around £20m+ but their net spend stays high even though they lost a high value player.
It should also be pointed out that we bring in a lot more money than we use to on selling players (mostly youngsters) who are deemed surplus to requirements (and this is a completely seperate point than anything Ronaldo related) - for me this is a positive move and not a negative, yet this again brings down out net spend which people use against the owners.
The area of player sales does also bring up the question of Ronaldo and how that affects net spend - clearly it skews it massively. It is undeniably an 'exceptional' item from an accounting point of view and my personal view is that people should wait 2/3 years before making judgements about how much of that cash was reinvested into the squad.
I would also say that even the amount spent buying players shown above only gives half the picture of investment in the squad anyway - it must be looked at in conjunction with wages to really understand how much the club invests into the squad on an annual basis.
Players wages have risen rapidly in recent years and the size of our first team squad has undoubtedly increased over the years - I would say we have never had a squad as deep as we now have. As such there is a huge outlay on wages which seems to get ignored in the dicsussion about investment into the squad.
Finally, I would point out that it is clearly in the owners interests to keep the squad strong and competitive - success on the pitch helps them make more profit off it, so I dont really understand why people are worried that they would deny Fergie funds if he requests them. We can see from the accounts that a substantial amount of cash (and a credit facility if required) are available to Fergie should he want it.
I would like to start a discussion about why I believe the entire argument about our low net spend and lack of investment in the squad is a complete fallacy.
Good point peters - just to explain to those who dont know, amortisation of acquisitions is how the club officially accounts for all transfers - the bond prospectus shows the following expenditure:
2007 £24m
2008 £35m
2009 £36m
Now before anyone starts, I am not saying these numbers are perfect as there probably does need to be some clarification of what exactly these numbers represent. I have in the past commented that they are not really an ideal way to judge how much cash is spent in any particular year - however, over a period of time I believe they are a very good indicator of how much the club invests in the playing squad.
These numbers show that a lot more money has been spent on the squad over the last few years than many people realise - headline transfer figures (which people use to calculate net spend) bear little relation to how much is actually paid out on an annual basis and are really pretty irrelevant.
This is all to do with the fact that contracts nowadays are paid in installments with extra clauses that often trigger payments several years after a transfer initially takes place. This is never taken into account in net spend calculations which would have us believe that the entire transfer fee is always paid upfront (this is very rare nowadays).
Free transfers are also ignored in net spend calculations - for example, we acquired Michael Owen last year but that had no impact on our net spend eventhough he obviously is a player with a significant value. And on the other side of the coin, Chelsea lost Joe Cole for nothing, he must be worth around £20m+ but their net spend stays high even though they lost a high value player.
It should also be pointed out that we bring in a lot more money than we use to on selling players (mostly youngsters) who are deemed surplus to requirements (and this is a completely seperate point than anything Ronaldo related) - for me this is a positive move and not a negative, yet this again brings down out net spend which people use against the owners.
The area of player sales does also bring up the question of Ronaldo and how that affects net spend - clearly it skews it massively. It is undeniably an 'exceptional' item from an accounting point of view and my personal view is that people should wait 2/3 years before making judgements about how much of that cash was reinvested into the squad.
I would also say that even the amount spent buying players shown above only gives half the picture of investment in the squad anyway - it must be looked at in conjunction with wages to really understand how much the club invests into the squad on an annual basis.
Players wages have risen rapidly in recent years and the size of our first team squad has undoubtedly increased over the years - I would say we have never had a squad as deep as we now have. As such there is a huge outlay on wages which seems to get ignored in the dicsussion about investment into the squad.
Finally, I would point out that it is clearly in the owners interests to keep the squad strong and competitive - success on the pitch helps them make more profit off it, so I dont really understand why people are worried that they would deny Fergie funds if he requests them. We can see from the accounts that a substantial amount of cash (and a credit facility if required) are available to Fergie should he want it.
Good post, Rood. Just as SAF says, there's no issue with transfer expenditure, the owners have fully supported him throughout and we can expect that they'll continue to do so.
Are you the single most gullible and naive person in the world or are you on a wind up?
Yes Fergie has not wanted for money when it has come to buying players. However, I sense an atmosphere of frugality pervades at OT in which cost curtailment is the key to viability going forward. Whilst Gill says there's money available, he knows full well that it is limited (probably 25m-30m). More importantly United would rather focus on bringing in youngsters who have potential but aren't going to cost much in terms of wages rather than established stars who are. In that regard Hernandez may just be brilliant business.
Where this falls down, in my view, is the midfield situation. We need an established world class performer there. Ok people will say we have Scholes, Carrick, Fletcher, Anderson, Gibson and now Cleverly, so why do we need anyone else ? However, when you look at it closely, as things stand, only Fletcher, if he stays fit, can be relied on for consistency over a season. Scholes, understandably, has to be used sparingly and will not always be afforded the room to operate as he was on Sunday. Carrick remains the nearly man both for club and country. Anderson - who knows ? Gibson and certainly young Cleverly are prospects and nothing more. This is why we need a Sneijder (missed opportunity) or an Ozil (about to be another). My view and I fully understand it's not everyones, is that we could do with a couple of others - a right back and a goalkeeper for example. What we need is established quality as it seems we are fairly well endowed with youthful prospects. Cost contstraints, it seems, will not allow too many high wage earners.
Fergie buys into this parsimonious scheme of things because it suits his personality - he likes a challenge and he believes in value - but it is a gamble, which in itself is another side to him. Can inexperienced youth carry the day ? The gamble becomes more acute because the Glazers must have a successful team if their plans are to be viable over the next few years.
Where this falls down, in my view, is the midfield situation. We need an established world class performer there. Ok people will say we have Scholes, Carrick, Fletcher, Anderson, Gibson and now Cleverly, so why do we need anyone else ? However, when you look at it closely, as things stand, only Fletcher, if he stays fit, can be relied on for consistency over a season. Scholes, understandably, has to be used sparingly and will not always be afforded the room to operate as he was on Sunday. Carrick remains the nearly man both for club and country. Anderson - who knows ? Gibson and certainly young Cleverly are prospects and nothing more. This is why we need a Sneijder (missed opportunity) or an Ozil (about to be another). My view and I fully understand it's not everyones, is that we could do with a couple of others - a right back and a goalkeeper for example. What we need is established quality as it seems we are fairly well endowed with youthful prospects. Cost contstraints, it seems, will not allow too many high wage earners.
Fergie buys into this parsimonious scheme of things because it suits his personality - he likes a challenge and he believes in value - but it is a gamble, which in itself is another side to him. Can inexperienced youth carry the day ? The gamble becomes more acute because the Glazers must have a successful team if their plans are to be viable over the next few years.
I guess fourth place and Champions League qualification should statisfy them. However with a net spend of approximately ZERO pounds year after year even this will become an uphill struggle.
- Status